why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[Shadowkire]

Look on the bright side, traukanshaku, there is a possibility that if nothing bad happens in Japan it may restore the public's faith in nuclear energy considering it was hit with a whole bucket-full of disaster and (if nothing bad happens) still the reactor didn't melt down/leak/explode/implode/mutate/[fake Hollywood disaster term].

So your job prospects could get better.

 

[EGtodd09]

It's all hyped up sooo much, those reactors in Japan have three or more layers of protection and there is next to no chance any radiation will escape. Chernobyl only blew up because it was not made to standard, it was made cheaply and the Russians suffered for it.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

If a Nuclear powerplant was to meltdown, it WOULD NOT poison the air and kill a large portion of the world. Chernobyl only killed around 80 people (From what I heard it was only like the 80 or so people working there and in the general area) during the initial explosion, it however poisoned the water and killed alot of wildlife in the area.

LITERALLY only 80 people WOULD'VE died if the Russian government had chosen a better way to deal with the problem. What the government did was to LITERALLY send soldiers into the irradiated area (With no protective gear) and told them each to take a large scoop of cement and run up to the plant and throw it onto the accident site. The men were paid with a can of coke and like $4.00 each for what they did. Virtually EVERY single soldier died later from Radiation sickness or poisoning, and even in modern times their great grandchildren suffer from after effects. I knew some children from Chernobyl who came to a family reunion of my family's some years ago (They were friends of my relatives who had moved to Canada several years earlier), they were only Teenagers and yet I heard that they were only expected to live for about 4-6 more years due to health problems and developing cancer (That was almost 8 years ago).

 

[GodofCider]

When it comes down to it, I'm fairly 'green'.

I'm in favor of nuclear power though.

It's safe, clean, reusable...but what about the nuclear waste?! What about it? Use fast reactors and burn it into a couple hundred year life cycle; and plant sunflowers. The 'waste' stored in the US alone is enough to power it for centuries, with projected energy consumption.

 

[JonnWood]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Every nuclear accident, ever, has harmed less people than the coal industry does in a year, according to Fark. There are dozens of nuclear plants in Japan, and the one that is having problems had to be hit by an earthquake and a tidal wave before it got into the state its in, and it's an old plant.

Nuclear power is, objectively, much safer than just about any other form of energy.

 

[JonnWood]

Look at Japan. It's one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet, and yet nobody realized the dangers of setting up nuclear power in an area prone to natural disasters.

It had to be hit by an earthquake and a tsunami before it experienced what is, objectively, a fairly minor problem. There are dozens of nuclear plants in the country, and only this one seems to be having problems.

 

[Evil Tim]

The graphite wasn't the coolant, it was the moderator, and it doesn't... er, "increase heat" (maybe you meant it insulates? I don't know if it does that either...), it just caught fire.

He's thinking of the tips of the control rods being made of graphite; the bit that did things was above that, and was boron carbide. They displaced the coolant as they were inserted, and the graphite briefly increased the rate of reaction in the core. Briefly was enough, the reactor blew up a few seconds into the 18-20 second SCRAM process.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

My main reason for being against Nuclear Power is all the waste that's produced. Until that problem is solved, you can't call it completely clean, and in the case of Britain we'll run out of places to dump it eventually.

That aside, I think you guys are being incredibly snobbish. It's not irrational to be worried about a nuclear plant having a meltdown, I know I wouldn't hang around a man who has a 1% chance of going nuts and slaughtering everyone in a three mile radius. The fears are exaggerated, yes, but not unfounded.

 

[superbatranger]

Well, if I'm not mistaken there was an explosion or two in or near one of the reactors so they have to be very wary the next few days to avoid a meltdown or worse. Now, there never was a sudden fear of nuclear power plants. I'm sure that since the beginning there have been people opposed to nuclear energy; people who use examples such at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as examples as to why nuclear energy should be banned. Hopefully this whole situation at the plants get solved without further incident.

 

[Phishfood]

Ok, screw quoting individual posts.

Yes, there is a risk of meltdown in the Japanese nukes. However a meltdown is NOT an explosion, it is literally what it says. The reactor melts. The fuel melts. The fuel casing melts. The control rods melt. The reactor casing melts. Anyone stupid enough to be in the room with the active reactor melts (but they melted anyway, thats a stupid place to be). This melted puddle of glowing goo then.....does nothing. It sits there like any other puddle. Why does it sit there? because its in a 4 foot thick concrete and steel reinforced shell. Its not going to go wrong. Its not going to fail. You can't leave the door open. Its just THERE.

What happens next? well, some poor schmuck has to go in there after it has all cooled down and dispose of it properly.

The radiation:
Was vented INTENTIONALLY. It is KNOWN to be relatively harmless short lived isotopes. OK, its not a GOOD thing but compared to the shit coal plants put out 24/7 its not particularly harmful.

The explosion:
Result of INTENTIONALLY VENTED Hydrogen gas. Not nice, but expected and harmless. (big fat concrete shell remember? this explosion occured outside that)

Is nuclear 100% safe? no. Its not. I suppose in THEORY big fatass concrete shell COULD be compromised. But lets compare that again to the shit that coal plants put out ALL THE TIME. there is a tiny minuscule risk of a nuclear accident similar to chernobyll, pretty much requiring the nuclear plant to be hit by a nuclear bomb to happen compared to the certainty of all the acid rain, CO2 and other nasties that come from coal and coal mining. I'll take the gamble thanks. 4' of concrete seems safe to me. Heck, it withstood a 9.0 earthquake and a massive tsunami and all thats happened is the plants are unusable. Not bad for 40 year old stuff.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Because the failings in the operations of the plants after the earthquake have let us see exactly what the cost of a terrorist attack on a plant would be. We could be smart, and use our understanding of geography, and pick locations that would be the least susceptible to tectonic activity, to maximize the prevention of an earthquake ripping one open again. But, if meltdown occurs in Fukushima, then no one's going to touch Nuclear for years, and that's going to be a major problem. Nuclear is one of the only true power replacements for fossil fuels, and we need to be building them now to truly get the benefits in time. Solar and wind farms being built now stretch all across massive plains just to get a modicum of energy from it, and even then the infrastructure isn't in place to really take advantage of it. Either we go nuclear, or we figure out a way to move off of steam power. One of these things must happen.

And, for those afraid, Fukushima will not be "Chernobyl 2!!". We're talking about different circumstances with different outcomes here. Meltdown is not going critical, it's just meltdown.

 

[Ulvai]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

What? I've been there. It's basically wildlife preserve. Green trees, soft grass, deers, boars, wolves running around, catfish swimming...

 

[BehattedWanderer]

My main reason for being against Nuclear Power is all the waste that's produced. Until that problem is solved, you can't call it completely clean, and in the case of Britain we'll run out of places to dump it eventually.

That aside, I think you guys are being incredibly snobbish. It's not irrational to be worried about a nuclear plant having a meltdown, I know I wouldn't hang around a man who has a 1% chance of going nuts and slaughtering everyone in a three mile radius. The fears are exaggerated, yes, but not unfounded.

Something like 90% of the waste from a nuclear power plant can be properly recycled either into reusable fuel or other products, when done right. The remainder can mostly be broken down into less hazardous compounds, and only about 2% of the total is waste. Both the UK and the US could initiate programs to reduce their waste in a matter of a few years, if they tried.

Oh, and a psychologist would tell you the chance of anyone going off the deep end is much higher than one percent. And it wouldn't even take that much, just something that offsets your established lifestyle with a decisive impact. People go crazy and kill each other all the time.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

When is the last time you remember a Coal Plant creating an uninhabitable no-man-land in a 100 mile radius?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynydd_Merthyr

It's not a "100 mile radius", but it directly killed more people than Chernobyl and the dust tailings kicked up probably had the same long-term health effects.

Closer to your point would be a hydroelectric dam failure [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure]. Make certain to look at the list of historical failures.

The last city that was made a ghost town for hundreds of years because of a few mistakes in a Solor plant?

No solar plant has come even close to the generating capacity of these plants. It'd be like comparing a Maine Coon cat with a chihuahua until you can find a solar plant (and storage system, so that it can continue feeding power at night!) that can produce hundreds of megawatts.

(Note that it's the storage for solar power that worries me in this case. Batteries and their ilk tend to fail... well... nastily.)

-- Steve

 

[MrGalactus]

Nuclear power is, objectively, much safer than just about any other form of energy.

Safer than wind? Solar? Geothermal? Tidal?

 

[Light 086]

*snip

From the news:
"Government officials early Sunday said as many as 160 people may have been exposed to radiation here in Fukushima Prefecture. That occurred following an explosion at the crippled number one plant of the Fukusihma nuclear power complex.

It apparently happened as the result of steps taken to try to prevent the reactor melting after the facility lost power as a result of the quake and tsunami. Plant operators initiated a desperate measure to cool the number one reactor using seawater and boric acid. Government officials say the containment vessel around the reactor's core is intact."

So apparently it can go wrong.

 

[Light 086]

*snip

From the news:
"Government officials early Sunday said as many as 160 people may have been exposed to radiation here in Fukushima Prefecture. That occurred following an explosion at the crippled number one plant of the Fukusihma nuclear power complex.

It apparently happened as the result of steps taken to try to prevent the reactor melting after the facility lost power as a result of the quake and tsunami. Plant operators initiated a desperate measure to cool the number one reactor using seawater and boric acid. Government officials say the containment vessel around the reactor's core is intact."

Apparently those control rods and "pulling the plug failed" :s

Here is the site: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Japans-PM-Urges-Evacuation-Near-Nuclear-Plant-117850648.html

I never said it happens instantly but it can happen that's why people fear it. And yes I know people still live in those areas, but many were plagued with numerous health issues. There are still some birth defects associated with the atomic bomb dropped on Japan.

I can look for more evidence to support my detailed argument later this evening after school and work, if you want me to just let me know.

 

[Evil Tim]

Nuclear power is, objectively, much safer than just about any other form of energy.

Safer than wind? Solar? Geothermal? Tidal?

Find me any of those that can generate gigawatt-level output in the footprint of a nuclear plant and we'll talk. Until then, it's like trying to say a Hornby train set shows a 1,000-ton Big Boy duplex is unsafe.

Also, wind has killed ~300 people with broken blades and ice breaking off the blades in cold weather.

 

[keinechance]

I find it funny that people are so insistent about the "alleged" safety of NPP's, when humanity MAY be facing the greates nuclear desaster of all time.

Yes, it MAY turn out to be controlable.

Yes, it MAY not turn an entire nation uninhabitable.

But the fact that the situation is comming very close to the worst case scenario, shows that the risks of nuclear power can be fatal for an entire nation.

I'm not saying "SHUT THEM DOWN NOW! ", but the situation in Japan should be seen as a reminder why nuclear power generation should be phased out as soon as possible.